On Thu, Oct 06 2016 at 04:56 -0600, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 5 October 2016 at 22:31, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Abstract genpd lock/unlock calls, in preparation for domain specific
locks added in the following patches.
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/power/domain.c | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
include/linux/pm_domain.h | 5 +-
2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
index 52fcdb2..82e6a33 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
@@ -39,6 +39,46 @@
static LIST_HEAD(gpd_list);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpd_list_lock);
+struct genpd_lock_fns {
May I suggest you to rename the struct to "genpd_lock_ops"?
I think "*_ops" is in general what we use in the kernel for callbacks
and functions pointers like these.
OK.
Thanks,
Lina
+ void (*lock)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
+ void (*lock_nested)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, int depth);
+ int (*lock_interruptible)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
+ void (*unlock)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
+};
+
[...]
Otherwise this looks good to me!
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
